Analysis: UN IPCC ‘an organisation that is funded by ‘Big Green’, comprised of governments desperate to appear politically correct, vested interests from academia and business, and environmental activist groups… anything the IPCC says must be regarded as equally compromised’
Even if the IPCC predictions were 100% correct…
Adversarial process required?
… why should anyone trust them?
The AGW advocates delight in making shrill claims about sceptics being funded by “Big Oil”, which the advocates believe is a perfectly good reason to dismiss much, if not all, of what they say as compromised. But what’s the difference with the IPCC? It is an organisation that is funded by “Big Green”, comprised of governments desperate to appear politically correct, vested interests from academia and business, and environmental activist groups. What goes for one, goes for the other. By analogy, anything the IPCC says must be regarded as equally compromised.
The only differences, as far as I can see, are that:
Big Green funds the AGW advocates a thousand dollars for every one dollar funding sceptics;
the IPCC shies away from transparency and open debate, whereas sceptics encourage it.
So even if all the dire predictions of the IPCC were correct, why should anyone believe them? And how is such a problem resolved?
The success of the adversarial process in a court of law relies on cross-examination and forensic analysis by those on the other side of an argument. By forcing a witness to answer difficult questions, and putting to him an alternative set of circumstances, a skilled counsel can drill down to reveal the uncomfortable truth that the witness may be reluctant to reveal. At the moment, the IPCC is a courtroom with a defendant (human emissions of CO2), but no defence lawyers present. All we get is the prosecution case. And the defendant is, unsurprisingly, quickly found guilty.
The alarmist industry, including the IPCC, must engage with those on the other side of the debate, and willingly bring them into the process, instead of excluding, and then demonising them. The IPCC should actively want its reports fact-checked and picked over by those who disagree. It must embrace the cross-examination of sceptics, as such a forensic examination would lend huge credibility to its findings.
But that change is not going to happen in a hurry, and until it does, the IPCC’s predictions are as worthless and compromised as the alarmists claim those of the sceptics to be.
Sent by gReader Pro